‘Safe Cosmetics Act’ NOT So Safe For Small Biz
The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010′ (H.R. 5786) was introduced this week by Democrat Representatives Scharkowsky (Illinois), Markey (Massachusetts) and Baldwin (Wisconsin). The full version of the draft bill for you to read is here. This draft has not yet been voted on. There is still time to have changes made. Now is the time to educate yourselves and write your lawmakers.
My company, Bramble Berry, opposes this draft legislation as written recommends that you write your Representative with a customized message opposing this legislation as it is currently written (not sure who your Rep is? Click here to find out!). Add your details; make it personal and let them know that if this bill passes as it is currently written, that your business will be affected. Here’s one example of a letter that you could write:
Dear Representative,
I am writing to express my concerns about H.R. 5786, the ‘Safe Cosmetics Act’. I make lip balms, soaps and lotions and sell them at the local Farmer’s Market. My business makes less than $5000 per year. I sell to pay for my daughter’s piano lessons and my son’s soccer camps every year. What I make augments my family’s income and helps our quality of life. I make my soaps and lotions with common ingredients that you can find in your kitchen. For example, I have a great bar of soap that I make out of four ingredients: Olive Oil, Water, Lye and skin safe fragrance. H.R. 5786 has a bunch of extra reporting requirements that would be virtually impossible for me to comply with. I’m just one woman in a kitchen. I don’t have a huge staff to help me. Plus, I often change my formulations based on the season and what my customers are asking for. Being nimble is a huge advantage for me and if I have to submit a new safety and ingredient affidavit for every product, that will take away one of my key advantages. Please don’t support this legislation. It is well-meaning but is written in such a way that I won’t be able to stay in business because I won’t be able to keep up. Estee Lauder started at her kitchen table. Please don’t take that opportunity away from me.
Sincerely,
Suzy Soaper
Suzy’s Soaps
Bramble Berry is opposed to the bill for the following reasons:
1. It is unnecessary. The cosmetic industry is a safe industry with a wide variety of choice on the marketplace for consumers.It is already illegal to manufacture unsafe cosmetics and is already illegal to not fully label ingredients or contact information on products.
2. This bill would, handicap small manufacturing business. In a time of economic uncertainty and distress for millions of Americans, this is untenable. For some families, the income from the Farmer’s Market may be what they are living on now.
3. The reporting requirements are ‘big brother.’ They ask for your annual sales, number of employees and even the names and addresses of your vendors.
4. ‘Detectable’ trace elements must be included on labels. Since almost everything is detectable, labeling will be confusing to end consumers (even more than it is already). So, “Water” on a label would look like “Aqua, Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Nickel, Silver, Zinc” (and if you live in my town, you’d also have to include caffeine, oral contraceptives and antibiotics in your water labeling requirement).
5. Ingredients that are considered carcinogenic when ingested (eaten) will be unable to be used in skin care products. Ingredients that are ‘found to induce birth defect’s when ingested or inhaled will be banned as well. You will be able to eat apples but not put them in skin care products. That’s because apples contain small amounts of cyanide. Lucky for us our body can detoxify cyanide in small amounts. But under this law, you still wouldn’t be able to put apples into your products even though you can safely eat apples.
6. Safety Statements, ingredient listing and registration information must be listed for each and every cosmetic, soap, lotion and potion must be made up. With a small scale manufacturer who is making a few of this and a few of that, this is a paperwork nightmare. It does not allow for easy changing of recipes when formulating and trying new recipes.
7. There is no full exemption for small businesses. Small businesses often launched because of the notion that cosmetics could be made with a larger proportion of more desirable ingredients than have typically been used by traditional cosmetics manufacturers
I fully believe that the backers of the bill are well-meaning and trust that this bill will have more changes before it is voted on. But it’s up to us to explain what changes need to be made to protect small business. Don’t just take my word and interpretation of the bill as gospel, read the bill for yourself here and start the education and change process today.
More about the author: Anne-Marie Faiola is the owner and founder of Brambleberry , an online soapmaking supply company. Read more from this author
Related posts:
I am not sure that it is entirely clear what specific ingredients would necessarily be banned at this point. They prosposed legislation states that the Secretary would decide this no later than a year (or two) after the bill has been passed. In addtion to being vague, there appears to be contradictions as well. Just as with coffee, banning apple extract or some form of apples in cosmetic products would be ludicrious. What ever happened to, “an apple a day keeps the doctor away?” The fact that apples have trace levels of cyanide has never been an issue (at least to my knowledge) in the food indutry. So, for the this billed to be passed banning the topical equivalent of foods we ingrest every day (e.g. coffee and apples) would make them look like total fanatical indiots…they can't be that stupid, or could they? Regarding the labeling requirements to include trace elements would make my eyes hurt just looking at an ingredient panel. This will not help the consumer, but will only confuse them more. Would this be on top of manufacturers already listing the INCI names on their packaging? It would look like a scambled mumbo jumbo mess.
The section on ingredients in the bill defines an ingredient as:
‘‘(E) contaminants present at levels above
technically feasible detection limits;
‘‘(F) contaminants that may leach from
container materials or form via reactions over
the shelf life of a cosmetic and that may be
present at levels above technically feasible de
tection limits;
Since almost everything is now feasible to detection limits, this makes all the sub-components that make up an ingredient fair game.
I think the legislation is well intended – it's just that it has a lot of unintended consequences. I'm hopeful that since it's in a draft form that it can be changed and/or improved before it gets to a vote.
The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics strongly supports small businesses and we have always been major advocates for elevating the work and values of the independent businesses that are the driving force of innovation toward health and safety in the personal care products industry. See for yourself: http://www.safecosmetics.org/article.php?id=695...
Hey greatergreen -
Thank you for your comments. I appreciate you providing that link, however, I'll say here as I did on Stacy's blog, http://notjustaprettyface.org/blog/industry-pre... “if the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has always been a supporter of the small business owner then why only now are you voicing your support by supplying that crafty link? For the life of me, I couldn’t find any pages that referenced you are supporting the small business owner when I looked up the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics site on the Internet Archive Wayback Machine”.
As a former signer, I can't remember a time when the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics reached out to me to see what they could do for the small business owner. When they drafted the petition to 'say yes' to the FDA Globalization Act of 2008, they didn't show support by notifying us before going full steam ahead.
Make no mistake, this bill is not about safe cosmetics. We, the small business owners are already creating safe products and have been since day one.
From the link you provided:
“We believe these challenges can be met without harm to small businesses and we believe the benefits of the Safe Cosmetics Act to small businesses will far outweigh the challenges”.
The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics does not have a clue what this bill is about and is living in some other realm because it's not in the here and now.
While I appreciate you are a staunch supporter of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, I can assure you I am a steadfast supporter of the small business cosmetic manufacturer, competition or not. The only thing that could change my mind is truthful information based on scientific facts, which the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics does not have. You can thank Susan Roll for letting that cat out of the bag in Colorado.
Thanks again for your comments. We will have to agree to disagree.
Have a great day!
Lisa
Lead is detectable at levels of a few parts per trillion (0.0000001%). Every cosmetic that contains water will be banned. Bye bye US cosmetics industry! There IS a case for cosmetics legislation, but not based on the ridiculous, hysterical demands of the chemophobic CFSC/EWG. It works in the EU without all the scientific impossibilities suggested by the extremists; there is no reason why sensible legislation shouldn't work in the US. There are hundreds, possibly thousands of small cosmetics businesses in the EU, despite 34 years of the Cosmetics Directive being in force!
What bothers me in particular, is when trying to post scientific articles on “not just a pretty face” I was prevented from doing so after my first comment with a link to the counterpoint video.
Instead Stacy repeated the same tired diatribe about vested interests and big oil companies financing some researcher, blah blah blah…as though scientists such as Dr. Swan who received grants from the EPA are more noteworthy….how does the way someone receives there funding let's say from the government have any more credibility in their research than someone who receives it from the private sector? Also since your organization spiel is “can't trust the government”, yet if the government does the funding to a scientist their research is truthful and clear…this is hypocrisy at its' worst….because this clearly shows the distortion of the truth. If the slant goes in your favor of what you are trying to instill in those that follow you, then this is the science you show, inconclusive and unsupported as it is since Dr. Swans study was a single narrow study and determined data could not be correlated with actual injury to humans in the study…just an educated guess based on a study on rats….And Stacy likes to reiterate how you all “have the science” when in fact it simply is not true.
Instead of providing us with completed studies, which some of us are certainly curious as to the data Stacy claims you have, all she could present were plugs for some books and links back to CFSC's website. Also the environmental health news site, citing scientific studies…In reviewing a large majority of them as would pertain to those that are represented in the current bill, not a single study was conclusive and to add insult to injury, every article is disseminated by those who interpret the science to their slant on things. These are articles of cherry picked, summarized data based on their ideologies instead of the full text for us to see the full scope of the data. As environmentalists, since these are who these authors are, not one study was linked to cosmetic research, but were on environmental pollutants.
I tried to place a link to complete and ongoing studies on nano particles which is included in this bill and I was prevented from doing so as my post was tossed. So apparently CFSC doesn't want the full science revealed but only the science they pick to support their disinformation.
This is what an actual, uncensored, complete research paper reveals, something that none of these other papers offered for review. This link is to the Journal of Nanobiotechnology in full text of the known and the unknown health risks on nano particles. Though environmentally it can be determined that they may pose some risk, at what levels have not been conclusive, but as far as entry through the skin, into the blood brain barrier this is more conclusive that there is little to zero risk posed as a hazard in a skin care product. But like all things further study is needed since nano science is relatively new.
http://www.jnanobiotechnology.com/content/2/1/12
Furthermore short of the financial exemption, small indie companies will still fall under every aspect of this bill, making testing of cosmetic ingredients which already have proven track record, redundant, unnecessary and expensive, therefore decimating the small manufacturer…don't kid yourself greenismyvalley. Get your facts straight and quit reading the summary put out by your community and actually take the bill piece by piece and read it for yourself…because this bill no where comes close to the description of the link you provided above, let alone the suggestion that EWG or CFSC could be the governing body…Sorry but I don't think so…, plus the real question is and something Stacy refused to answer, since there are companies already making safer products, then why do we need more burdensome legislation? Customers already have a choice to go safer and “wow”, they didn't even need the government to do it for them….Just think the American People do have brains and common sense and are voting with their dollar.
Here is further research and articles including the latest from Oregon University. I was also prevented from displaying these links as well.
http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubid.1226/pub...
http://www.cosmeticsdesign.com/Formulation-Scie...
http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2009/jun...
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/pdf/MakingS...
http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.1891/he...
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Ri...
hmmm…The Campaign supports small businesses so much they hold them hostage on their signers list after they have asked multiple times to be removed, see for yourself http://bit.ly/91FWN2 That is not what I'd call support, that is holding people hostage against their will and it is clear my small, green company is not alone in this sad display of “support”.
The provisions in the proposed bill will put small, green, innovative businesses right out of business. It's so pathetic and downright despicable to not release those of us that no longer want to be associated with the campaign from the signer list. It's also sad they have so many “signers” that are no longer even in business. Maybe the Campaign should focus on cleaning up their signer list, removing companies that ask to be removed and rather than pushing an over regulating bill through that literally will kill innovative entrepreneurs throughout the USA who are creating some of the safest cosmetics in the marketplace. Shame on the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.
At the risk of upsetting some of my friends on here (and I am not deliberately setting out to do this!), I have to question some of the rationale used as opposition to this proposed Act, although I stress that it looks like a piece of disastrous legislation to me as well!
I don't understand how anyone can use the claim that the industry always produces safe products as a reason to avoid legislation. Any one can easily claim to be producing safe products, but on what basis can anyone claim this for every manufacturer? This involves an enormous amount of faith and trust – unjustifiably, IMO. The entire industry is only as safe as the least scrupulous manufacturer! How can you be so sure that the products you are producing ARE safe? On what basis are you so certain? It is certainly not sufficient proof to be using only natural ingredients, as has been hinted at in other posts in other discussions, because there is no guarantee that natural is safe. I believe that you play into the hands of the EWG when using this safety argument. Even when using “safe” ingredients, there is always a possibility that there may be some interaction between two or more ingredients that may produce an adverse effect. How many small business owners have that depth of technical knowledge to be able to detect this before a product is launched? This is why, in the EU, an important factor in the regulations requires the assessment of every product by a qualified person. There is, I have to admit, some fairly onerous documentaion also required, but nothing like on the scale proposed in the US – much of which is totally superflous to the intention of the Act, ie to ensure safe cosmetics.
Neither do I believe that any perceived threat to small businesses is a reason in itself to stop the Act, although I fully appreciate the concerns expressed about the possible impact of the Act. you cannot claim the mere fact that you are a small business as a reason for exemption. If I was on the side of the EWG, I would argue that I don't believe that small businesses should be free to place unsafe products in the market, which, in effect, your claimed exemption would permit.
I have said previously in discussions that I believe the division of the industry into large and small businesses is a false divide. There is no clear distinction between what small cosmetics companies do and what the large/massive ones do. Not all small cosmetics businesses are “natural” or “innovative”, and not all large ones only use (synthetic) “chemicals”. No black or white, only shades of grey.
I am playing Devil's Advocate here, because I would like to see the people who are fighting against this Act get the required changes to the detail of the legislation, because I think that the legislation is badly written, overbearing and much of it unneccesary, but I DO think that some form of legislation would be good for the industry, if only to give a better perception and to spike the guns of the chemophobic EWG and similar organisations. I am sure that changes can and will be made, but the arguments need to be the right ones in order to achieve this.
Is anyone still talking to me?
Actually Dene, I agree with you and I have also stated this to my fellow Indies in regard to large versus small…I feel the bill in its entirety is ill conceived and I don't even think the large companies should be required to pay fees or be singled out. But I do believe they can take care of themselves since their pockets are deep in terms of fighting this legislation.
However, with that stated, though some of this frustration we are feeling is coming out with a strong contention against what CFSC promulgates, what does get lost in the argument is the complete safety on natural ingredients. I think you already know where I stand on this issue based on our past conversations at Linked In.
I use natural and I use synthetic chemicals also and I don't feel these are mutually exclusive, this is what has made me nuts about what the campaign stands for. By how they are proposing this bill, my main issue with the bill is the redundant testing on ingredients that already have a long history of safety, but when it comes to organics, not so much so…and it is based on the constituents of these ingredients the naturalists are going to find problems with this legislation. Trace elements of what CFSC and EWG consider toxins can be found in just about all natural substances.
We ultimately can be shooting ourselves in the foot, because with all the claims of safer because it is organic, these could be the very ingredients that are removed from market and only synthetics will remain since through chemistry, synthetics can be created free of constituents.
But what we must remember, is EWG also enjoys dissecting a synthetic chemical based on its origin of creation instead of the finished ingredient. Bottom line we are definitely in a conundrum right now, and if we really want to get down to the reality of making this a fair playing field for the entire industry, we must remove the premise of taking sides.
Bottom line, the entire bill should be scrapped and one be created which is drafted with peer studies of those in the industry as we were not consulted at all when this poor excuse of government control was presented. Personal Care Products Council was moving in that direction, but not necessarily at trying to gain control over our government as EWG is since they are mentioned as one of the governing bodies and most of this bill is left up to the discretion of the Secretary….the language is too ambiguous and dangerous for the industry as a whole, not just small manufacturers.
Just my take on the matter!
The bottom line here has to be improved safety, but there are certainly better ways of achieving this.
I have not, and I probably never will, read through the document in its entirity as I have no personal or professional need to do this. However, on the first scan-through, I noticed a sinister clause – and I truly mean sinister – that I have not yet seen anyone else pick up on. I am referring to the clause that requires notification of a minimum of 300 chemicals to the FDA for assessment. That in itself is not too scary, although I question why there HAS to be a minimum as the actual number is irrelevant; what is more relevant are the actual numbers of ingredients with GENUINE cause for concern. The sinister part is this:
The requirement for the FDA to have performed the safety assessment within a period of 18 months from notification, OTHERWISE THE INGREDIENT MUST BE BANNED FROM USE!!!!!!! And this, not based on any science, just on the principle that 18 months suits the person who drafted this document. It may as well be 6 months!
If this clause gets passed, then the entire cosmetics industry in the USA will be doomed! A hysterical response? I don't think so. Consider the possibility of the EWG demanding the assessment of 10,000 different synthetic ingredients on Day 1 of the Act (remember, no maximum number is stated, only a minimum). 18 months later, somewhere around 9,900 of these ingredients will be banned, simply because no-one in the world, not just the FDA, has the capacity to perform proper safety evaluations on that number of substances. I hope no-one tries to tell me that the EWG wouldn't do this – I would stake everything I own on them doing just that (the number may be slightly different, but you get the point, I hope).
Even a brief moment of consideration of this clause is a waste of time – I suggest that those who are able to do so, concentrate very hard on getting that part changed, even if the rest stays the same! The consequences of that clause getting passed are truly dire!
I apologise if I have misunderstood this clause, due to the brief nature of my scan-through, but I suspect that my interpretation is correct.
Why yes Dene, I'm still talking to you.
You make valid points as the devil's advocate. While the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) could use tweaking in some areas, this is not the legislation to do that.
My hopes are the legislators will meet with small cosmetic manufacturer advocates to hear why we believe this is not the bill to make changes to present cosmetic regulations and openly receive our suggestions.
You are absolutely right on that clause Dene, and it is being addressed, though not publicly. As an industry we are not discussing all matters of this bill, as it would defeat the purpose of our intention and disclose to those that drafted this bill what is already in the pipe for this portion of legislation.
But rest assured it is noted and being taken very seriously. This clause alone could kill this bill and it is what we are counting on…but while this portion is being handled more discreetly, the other areas of the bill which go in direct opposition to CFSC and EWG are the issues at hand.
And yes safety is a must and we can get there, but not through invasion of government into our businesses or revealing trade secrets such as our vendors, our income, our employees, etc.
In what way does this make a cosmetic product safer? These are in the bill also Dene. There are so many ways this bill is over reaching and I won't bore you with details, but all I know is I am glad you are here and that you do handle both sides of the issue.
One thing PCT and their experts whom contribute don't want to be accused of is lopsided science or theory or censoring comments short of abusive in nature…showing all sides of any debate is the way to go….I think it is unfortunate that Stacy Malkin at Not Just A Pretty Face is censoring you, as well as me, since I can no longer place any links to scientific studies at her blog…so much for being truthful…as it is clear that real science on these issues is a threat to their agenda and must be quashed…Free thinking individuals is a scary thing for her as it goes in direct opposition to her convoluted statements.
Thanks Katherine! I hope I haven't spoken out of turn and given the game away – I am more than happy for Lisa to remove my earlier post if it may cause problems. I certainly don't want to spoil the surprise for the EWG!
To answer your question – I don't think that the Act would materially improve the safety of cosmetics, but it would massively improve the perception of safety (plus, as I have said several times before, spike the guns of the EWG etc.).
Having just seen Kristen's e-mail message about the difficulty of getting removed from the CFSC and their apparant refusal to contribute to a radio discussion (plus us getting heavily censored by Stacy “I Can't Really String An Argument Together” Malkan), it seems to me that maybe the CFSC are getting a little nervous. To go to such lengths to keep signatories from being removed smacks of real desperation and, despite the typical EWG bluster, there has been quite a backlash to the Annie Leonard video, I think the tide may be close to turning. I hope so.
I do believe we are Okay on that one Dene since acknowledging its premise is not the same thing as how it is being acknowledged or where it stands…but yes if Lisa thinks we should moderate this portion of our comments then I too am fine with that.
Hope you have a wonderful weekend, I know I'm smilin' today!
Hey Dene, I see your latest post to Stacy Malkin was deleted again about why she is censoring you and removing your posts. It is clear your actual debate with her with your further comments will never be posted, since she clearly doesn't have the answers. Even if she doesn't, I would have more respect for her for allowing the open forum and stating, she doesn't know the answers than flat out censoring information that may actually get her followers to take a closer look at what CFSC is proposing…Nah that's too scary of a thought to them….To Quote the Beatles song: Back in the U.S.S.R.
I think it would be great if you could post those comments here so those that care to, can at least see what you were trying to convey, instead of allowing Stacy to control the data as much as it scares her. Based on this fact alone, CFSC should lose all credibility with those who for one moment thought they had all the answers to solving this supposed crisis with the personal care industry.